I suppose the difference is that it's pledged: everybody including the founder knows that they're reducing their share by X amount up-front. A house isn't publi

I suppose the difference is that it's pledged: everybody including the founder knows that they're reducing their share by X amount up-front. A house isn't publicly earmarked in that kind of way, and of course, it's money spent for the founder's direct benefit rather than given away. So there's a temptation for people to say, "well clearly you're OK with reducing your compensation for [purpose X], why not for [arguably superior purpose Y]?" I'm not sure it really makes sense to think of it that way but there is a distinction.